Businesses in the Mining, Civil and Construction industries often choose paying their workforce a flat rate of pay for all hours worked. This is due to a combination of workers preferring a flat rate of pay as it is more in line with how tradesmen charge for their time, and businesses preferring to pay a flat rate of pay because it’s easier to forecast project costs and process payroll.

Most businesses don’t realise that by paying flat rates of pay you can be liable for paying superannuation on all hours worked. The superannuation guarantee states that “Payments for work performed outside an employee’s ordinary hours of work are not ordinary time earnings” but if a worker is constantly working over 38 hours a week and is constantly being paid one flat rate then all of those hours could be considered ordinary if there is no distinct financial difference between the ordinary rate of pay and the overtime rate of pay.

It is a common business misconception that defining ordinary hours in a workers employment contract fixes this, but be careful as this alone may not be adequate.

The solution can be surprisingly simple. Businesses should ensure that there is a clear difference between the first 38 hours paid and all hours paid thereafter for each pay period and this need to be reflected in the workers employment contracts.

This doesn’t mean you have to pay the workers a higher amount overall, you can simply offset the higher overtime rate with a lower ordinary rate as most workers in the above industries are generally paid well above the applicable minimum award obligation. This allows businesses to enter into individual flexibility arrangements. This solution also means that you are paying superannuation on a lower ordinary rate of pay which further increases savings.

Some businesses may feel they could be disadvantaged when advertising a new position with the above structure but if your workforce is routinely performing overtime we suggest advertising the role as a day rate by bundling the ordinary rate and overtime rate together. It is important to explain the pay structure in detail during the interview process and to provide a letter of offer or employment contract prior to the individual commencing work.

About the Author

Paul Konstek is EI’s Managing Partner in WA and has been supporting businesses inmining, civil and construction industryfor almost a decade. His team specialises in assisting businesses with tender submissions, worker inductions and mobilisations, employing,pay rollingand finding the right workers for your project.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/flat-rates-pay-know-superannuation-obligations/feed/0LEGAL BLOG: It Does Not Pay To Underpayhttps://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-it-does-not-pay-to-underpay/
https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-it-does-not-pay-to-underpay/#commentsThu, 12 Feb 2015 07:26:06 +0000https://employmentinnovations.com/?p=18305Lesson from the recent court case, it is important for all employers to be aware of their obligations under modern awards and the Fair Work Act in relation to employee entitlements. As highlighted in this blog, misinformation is no excuse even when the employer does not have a dedicated human resources section to assist.

Over the last 12 months, the Fair Work Ombudsman has taken a much more aggressive approach when discovering workplace underpayments than we have seen in recent times. This has culminated in over half a million dollars in penalties being awarded by the courts against underpaying employers in December and January. We give an example of one of these cases below, but the trend is being set in all types of circumstances of underpayment.

Facts

The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and involved the determination of penalties to be imposed on a hairdressing business and two of its directors by reason of having underpaid an employee by approximately $8,500 (Fair Work Ombudsman v Cuts Only They Original Barber Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] FCCA 2381).

After the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings against the respondents, they admitted that they had underpaid Ms Bejjani in breach of the Health and Beauty Industry Award and the National Employment Standards under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The respondents subsequently rectified the underpayment.

Cuts Only and its associated companies had previously been the subject of 10 similar complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (and its predecessor) including a previous complaint by Ms Bejjani for similar underpayments.

Held

While the respondents submitted that the underpayments were a result of misinformation, the Federal Circuit Court held that the breaches by the respondents were deliberate (specifically taking into consideration their previous underpayment breaches) and that it was the responsibility of employers’ to accurately ascertain their employees’ entitlements.

Further, while the respondents submitted that at the time the breaches occurred they did not have a dedicated human resources section, the Court held that these circumstances were no excuse for the contraventions of employee entitlements.

In deciding on the penalty to be imposed the Court took into consideration the need for specific deterrence and general deterrence.

The Court held that there was a need for specific deterrence given the large number of previous complaints against Cuts Only and its associated companies.

In relation to general deterrence the Court took into consideration the high number of similar underpayment breaches in the health and beauty industry and held “It is important that a message be sent, both to the respondents and the industry generally, that failure to pay workers their correct entitlements is not economic”

The penalty imposed on Cuts Only was $50,160 and each of the directors $10,032.

EMPLOYERS ARE TO BE AWARE OF THIER OBLIGATIONS UNDER MODERN AWARDS.

Lessons

It is important for all employers to be aware of their obligations under modern awards and the Fair Work Act in relation to employee entitlements. As held in this case, misinformation is no excuse (even when the employer does not have a dedicated human resources section to assist).

If employers are having difficulties understanding their obligations in relation to employee entitlements it is important that they seek legal advice to prevent large penalties being imposed on them. The Court has demonstrated that it takes these cases very seriously and will not tolerate such breaches.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-it-does-not-pay-to-underpay/feed/0LEGAL BLOG: Employee Breaches Copyright by Taking Company Materials on Terminationhttps://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-employee-breaches-copyright-taking-company-materials-termination/
https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-employee-breaches-copyright-taking-company-materials-termination/#commentsWed, 11 Feb 2015 23:48:38 +0000https://employmentinnovations.com/?p=18298The Federal Court has recently made it clear that, in addition to breaching their obligations of confidentiality, former employers who take company materials with them when they depart from employment may be in breach of copyright law. With significant attendant exposures to damages claims. FACTS...

]]>The Federal Court has recently made it clear that, in addition to breaching their obligations of confidentiality, former employers who take company materials with them when they depart from employment may be in breach of copyright law. With significant attendant exposures to damages claims.

FACTS

In Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129, a software engineer was ordered to pay $50,000 in damages to his former employer Leica for breaching its copyright on source code and other programming materials.

Just days before leaving Leica, the employee downloaded over 60GB of company-owned materials to an external hard drive before copying them to his personal laptop.

The employee asserted that neither he nor his new employer made any profit from the materials and never sought to do so. He insisted that he took the materials as a trophy because he was proud of his work. He also claimed that he wanted to protect himself from claims of poor work from Leica in the future.

HELD

The court held that the employee had breached Leica’s copyright in that he knew the materials were the property of the company and he knowingly took and copied them without Leica’s permission. The court ordered damages for infringement of copyright in the sum of $50,000.00.

The court also held that the employee had breached his employment contract, his equitable duty of confidence and his obligations under the Corporations Act 2001. For those breaches, however, the court only ordered nominal damages of $1.00.

LESSONS

The temptation for departing employees to take company materials when they leave is well-known. Often, such materials will be the company’s confidential information, and well-drafted employment contracts will give significant protection in relation to such materials. A well-defined exit process will also go a long way to ensuring employees are aware of their obligations. This case goes on to demonstrate, however, the other avenues by which the seriousness of such breaches may be further exposed and is a useful addition to the suite of claims to be made (or threatened) against infringing former staff.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-employee-breaches-copyright-taking-company-materials-termination/feed/0LEGAL BLOG: Tips to Avoid Stumbling Over The Easy Part Of A Redundancy!https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-do-not-stumble-over-the-easy-part-of-a-redundancy/
https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-do-not-stumble-over-the-easy-part-of-a-redundancy/#commentsSun, 08 Feb 2015 23:34:44 +0000https://employmentinnovations.com/?p=18282Redundancies and the events leading up to them – restructures, downsizing, off-shoring – happen. And unlike the hurdles presented in the past, these days the law is quite accommodating in insulating employers from employee claims regarding redundancies.

]]>Redundancies and the events leading up to them – restructures, downsizing, off-shoring – happen. And unlike the hurdles presented in the past, these days the law is quite accommodating in insulating employers from employee claims regarding redundancies. Where they are genuine, employers are generally safe in effecting redundancies so long as they comply with the procedural steps of notification and consultation. Surprisingly, however, many employers still get notification and consultation wrong, and a relatively safe procedure ends up having significant legal consequences…

The following is a very basic overview of the law, but contains a very important message for all employers: don’t stumble over the easy part of a redundancy by getting it wrong!

Employees who are covered by modern awards or enterprise agreements have a right to be notified and consulted about their employer’s decisions to implement “major change”. A “major change” is essentially anything that may have a significant impact on a worker’s employment. Whenever redundancies eventually occur, a “major change” will have occurred well beforehand (for example, a decision by a car manufacturer to stop building a particular type of car will be a decision about “major change”. The redundancies which may arise as a result of that decision is merely a later consequence of the “major change”).

The vital thing to take-away is that the notification and consultation obligations are triggered once the definite decision about the major change has been taken by the employer. The employer is required to notify the employees (verbally and in writing) of the non-confidential details of the major change. A period of consultation can then take place in which the employer and employees can discuss the potential or likely impacts of the major change on their employment, and mitigation strategies to avoid redundancies or other ramifications.

Unfortunately, employers often do not notify or consult with their staff after major change decisions are made, and in fact only notify staff once to inform them of redundancies. By this time the horse has bolted, and the time for complying with the notice and consultation obligations around “major change” has gone. And that’s where employers can suddenly find themselves exposed.

Example

A recent case in the Federal Circuit Court serves as a typical example of how employers can get it wrong – and what the consequences can be. In Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Whitehaven Coal Limited [2014] FCCA 2657, Whitehaven made a definite decision to change the way it operated (by mining coal which required less effort and cost to extract) which as a result would reduce the equipment and personnel required. Whitehaven then on the same day notified a number of employees that their positions were being made redundant. Some of these employees were covered by an enterprise agreement and therefore had “major change” notification/consultation entitlements. Whitehaven had incorrectly been of the belief that under its notification/consultation obligations it could come to a decision to implement redundancies and then consult with its employees as to the affects of the redundancy decision that had already been made.

Outcome – fines and other risks

The Federal Circuit Court held that Whitehaven had not complied with the consultation provisions as it did not provide any opportunity to discuss the operational changes with employees affected prior to the decision being made to implement the redundancies. The Court penalised Whitehaven $19,000 for its failure to consult.

The Court also penalised Whitehaven a further $1,000 for failing to notify Centrelink in advance of the redundancies (which is also an obligation set out in the Fair Work Act).

While it was not an issue that arose in this case, the failure to consult would also have stripped Whitehaven of an otherwise rock-solid defence against unfair dismissal claims brought by any of the retrenched staff. The law protects employers from unfair dismissal claims when the terminations are due to redundancy – but this protection disappears if the notification/consultation obligations are not followed.

Lessons

Given the financial and legal risks involved, it is imperative that employers understand (or get advice on) their consultation obligations before making decisions about “major change” in the workplace. And definitely before taking any decisions about redundancy. The law in this area is a minefield, but it can be safely negotiated with sufficient prior planning, and the savings will be significant.

]]>A decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales highlights how high quality, specialist employment contracts can potentially save employers big damages payouts (Bartlett v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2014] NSWSC 1662).

BACKGROUND

In 2012, a journalist for the Australian Financial Review received – unprompted – a print-out of an email in a hand-addressed envelope. The email was from management of ANZ Institutional Property Group to a selection of its senior employees regarding a change in policy. The printed version had been sent by someone to the journalist, presumably in the hopes of getting some publicity. The printed version of the email however had been doctored by its sender.

The journalist contacted ANZ about the email. Given the seriousness of the act of doctoring the email and releasing confidential internal information to a third party, ANZ decided to conduct an investigation to identify the person responsible. The investigation included having the hand-addressed envelope examined by a forensic handwriting expert.

The investigation report concluded that Mr Bartlett, one of the senior employees of the ANZ, was the likely perpetrator. After attending a number of formal interviews and meetings, throughout which he denied involvement, ANZ came to the view that Mr Bartlett was probably responsible, that in their opinion it constituted serious misconduct, and his employment was terminated.

COURT CASE

Mr Bartlett sued ANZ for a breach of his employment contract, alleging that ANZ could not terminate his employment for serious misconduct without proving he was actually guilty of such conduct. Mr Bartlett argued that the internal investigation never conclusively proved that he was guilty of sending the doctored email and that the evidence of the forensic handwriting expert was not watertight.

ANZ submitted that whether there was a fully conclusive finding of fact or not was irrelevant because under his employment contract, ANZ could summarily terminate Mr Bartlett’s employment “if, in the opinion of ANZ” he was engaged in serious misconduct. And that was their opinion.

Mr Bartlett counter-argued that if his termination could be based on the opinion of ANZ, then a term should be read into his contract requiring such an opinion to be reasonable, correct, formed in good faith with proper regard for his interests.

COURT’S DECISION

The court accepted the arguments of ANZ and found that the words “if, in the opinion of ANZ,” carried important meaning and should not be read out of the contract. It held that Mr Bartlett’s termination was not a breach of the employment contract because at the time of his termination, ANZ was of the opinion that he had engaged in serious misconduct.

The court also found that no implied term existed as Mr Bartlett contended.

TIPS FOR EMPLOYERS

If this simple line (“in the opinion of ANZ”) had not been included in the employment contract, this case may have been decided very differently, and the damages exposure could have been significant for ANZ. As a minimum, employers should ensure that this sort of wording appears at all applicable parts of their contracts – and not only their serious misconduct sections.

There are many other similar advantages to be had in the specifics of drafting employment contracts. Generally these are only known to those keeping a close eye on legislative and case law developments. Given the stakes, the value of using high-quality employment contracts prepared by proactive employment law specialists – as well as having them regularly reviewed and updated (we recommend at least annually) – cannot be over-stated.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-employment-contract-saves-employer/feed/0LEGAL BLOG: Support Person During Workplace Investigationhttps://employmentinnovations.com/legal-comment-support-person-workplace-investigation/
https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-comment-support-person-workplace-investigation/#commentsThu, 08 Jan 2015 00:51:58 +0000https://employmentinnovations.com/?p=18174The Fair Work Commission Full Bench recently determined an appeal regarding whether the dismissal of a BlueScope Steel employee, was harsh unjust or unreasonable. The termination was triggered by an incident involving the operation of an overhead crane resulting in damage of approximately $10,000 to the BlueScope product.

The Fair Work Commission Full Bench recently determined an appeal regarding whether the dismissal of a BlueScope Steel employee, was harsh unjust or unreasonable. The termination was triggered by an incident involving the operation of an overhead crane resulting in damage of approximately $10,000 to the BlueScope product.

Of particular relevance to the decision – and interest to employers generally – was whether the employee was denied procedural fairness by not having a support person present during an investigation meeting into the crane incident.

Held

The Full Bench held that there is no onus on an employer to offer an employee the opportunity to have a support person present at meetings relating to a dismissal.

While the Fair Work Act sets out the following criteria to be considered when determining whether a dismissal is unfair:

“Any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the [employee] to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal” (section 387)

There is no obligation on the employer to offer it when a request is not made by the employee.

In the case of this particular employee, as he did not at any point request a support person, BlueScope could not logically have refused his request (whether unreasonably or otherwise). There was therefore no denial of procedural fairness.

Interestingly, the Full Bench also held that a meeting about an incident investigation is not necessarily a meeting “relating to dismissal” in any event. That is, BlueScope may have had grounds to refuse the request for a support person even if it was made by the employee, and even if the refusal was unreasonable, because the meeting related to the investigation not the dismissal (which occurred at a later meeting).

This decision indicates that there is no strict obligation on an employer to offer employees a support person during an investigation meeting, or even a dismissal meeting.

Lessons

This decision indicates that there is no strict obligation on an employer to offer employees a support person during an investigation meeting, or even a dismissal meeting.

This may be of assistance to employers in some situations. However, as a general approach to good workplace practices, EI strongly recommends that employers continue to invite support persons to meetings unless there are overwhelming reasons not to do so. This is especially recommended where the employee is of some particular vulnerability (such as because of their age, or language skills), or where there is a real prospect of the employee misinterpreting the discussions taking place at the meeting.

It is important to keep in mind that a support person is merely there to provide support – not advocacy. If you are concerned that a particular support person may railroad a meeting then you are entirely within your rights to reign them in. Sometimes this will be easier said than done and there may be occasions where it will be best to seek to avoid their involvement at all, and the Full Bench’s decision assists with taking such a stance. But as a matter of standard workplace practice, we would continue to recommend the involvement of support persons on most occasions.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-comment-support-person-workplace-investigation/feed/0PAYROLL BLOG: WHAT IS PAYROLL TAX?https://employmentinnovations.com/blog-what-is-payroll-tax/
https://employmentinnovations.com/blog-what-is-payroll-tax/#commentsMon, 17 Nov 2014 01:34:42 +0000http://employmentinnovations.com/?p=17895In the recent months, we have been asked about payroll tax and what it is? Although Employment Innovations (EI) does not offer payroll tax services, it is still worthwhile to include it in our blog. Payroll Tax is an Australian State and Territory based taxation...

]]>In the recent months, we have been asked about payroll tax and what it is? Although Employment Innovations (EI) does not offer payroll tax services, it is still worthwhile to include it in our blog.

Payroll Tax is an Australian State and Territory based taxation scheme imposed on businesses, which operate services in Australia. The calculation is self assessed and is calculated on wages, superannuation and fringe benefits paid to employees. Each Territory and State have a target threshold of when taxation is payable, along with a set percentage value used for the calculation. This percentage rate and threshold may be indexed annually or bi-annually. Payment is generally made to the various offices monthly by employers with an annual reconciliation performed in July of each for the preceding financial year.

Payroll Tax was introduced by the federal government in 1941 to finance a national scheme for child endowment. To fund this scheme, a levy of 2.5% was applied to payrolls. With the federal government assuming control of the income tax base, the state governments lobbied for access to payroll tax, and in 1971 the federal government handed the payroll tax over to the state governments, acknowledging that this tax represented the sole possible growth tax available to the states.

During the following three years, the state governments uniformly increased the rate to 5 per cent.

Over time, the uniformity of state payroll tax rates have eroded, as has the base to which they are applied, however, in 2007 a decision was made to overhaul payroll tax arrangements to achieve greater legislative and administrative harmonisation.

About the author

Andre Atton, Head of EI Business Process Outsourcing Unit. Andre has more than 15 years experience leading teams on both domestic & international payroll platforms. His specialty is the transformation of inefficient HR business process, with a focus onpayroll outsourcingas the transactional driver towards the more strategic aspects ofHR.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/blog-what-is-payroll-tax/feed/0LEGAL BLOG: Avoid The Scattergun Approachhttps://employmentinnovations.com/employment-legal-blog-avoid-scattergun-approach/
https://employmentinnovations.com/employment-legal-blog-avoid-scattergun-approach/#commentsSun, 16 Nov 2014 23:13:17 +0000http://employmentinnovations.com/?p=17882Legal Blog: Where do I start when dealing with allegations of misconduct or considering dismissing an employee.

The Employee was dismissed as a result of his failure to inspect an isolator on a dump truck after he had been lawfully instructed to do so. Leading up to the dismissal the Employee was informed that he had breached many internal policies and his employment contract as a result of failing to inspect the isolator. However, the Employer subsequently admitted that not all the documents listed to the Employee were in fact breached.

Held

The FWC held that the Employee’s failure to follow the Employer’s lawful direction was “in the first instance careless, if not wilful”.

The FWC went further and found that once the Employee became aware that other employees were working on the dump truck without him having inspected the isolator, and his failure in not ceasing all activity by other employees until the isolator was checked, was considered to be “serious, reckless and improvident“.

The FWC found that the Employer had a valid reason to terminate the Employee’s employment and it was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. In coming to this decision the FWC considered the relevant criteria in section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

While this was not ultimately the deciding factor, the FWC importantly made the observation that the Employer’s Human Resources personnel’s actions were deficient, and this was not the first time, due to their tendency to “‘throw the book’ at employees and list a number of alleged breaches of ‘this or that’ document”.

The FWC stressed the importance of “rather than focusing on quantity, it is preferable, to set out the key documents which have been breached and not adopt a ‘scattergun approach``.

Lessons

Employers may consider it thorough to list every document that an employee potentially breached when dealing with allegations of misconduct or considering dismissing an employee. However, the FWC has instead highlighted that key documents should be the focus rather than a “scattergun” approach. While this did not ultimately affect the outcome in this decision, now that it has been highlighted as an issue by the FWC it may affect the validity of a dismissal in future cases. Employers need to keep this in mind and carefully approach disciplinary action and dismissals.

Facts:

The Federal Court recently in the case of Fair Work Ombudsman v World Gym Sunshine Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] FCCA 2201 ordered World Gym Sunshine Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $41,182.50, and the director of the gym $6,426, for their deliberate failure to comply with an order from the Fair Work Commission to pay $2,200 compensation to an employee who was unfairly dismissed.

The employee followed up directly with the business in relation to its failure to comply with the order. After the business and director continued to ignore the order, she got the Fair Work Ombudsman involved. Following the complaint, the Fair Work Ombudsman issued several notices to the business requesting it to comply with the order, which were all ignored

Held:

It was held by the Court that there was no evidence to suggest that the gyms and the director’s failure to comply with the FWC order was not deliberate. Further, the Court held when making the order that “this was a small business, however, that is no excuse”.

Lessons:

While it is uncommon for businesses not to follow FWC orders in unfair dismissal matters, this decision could have implications for other matters such as those that involve bullying. The FWC cannot order compensation in bullying cases; however, other more complicated orders exist that some employers may find more difficult to comply with. Such orders may affect the daily running of the business such as not being allowed to roster two workers on the same shift. Such an order may become difficult in certain situations for businesses to comply with. This case suggests that if the employer did not comply with those FWC orders similar high penalties that were applied in this case could be ordered.

It is important for employers to understand any orders made against them by the FWC, whether it is an unfair dismissal or bullying matter, and make sure they comply with such orders. If they do not understand orders made against them it is important for employers to take steps to ensure they are explained to them to prevent further proceedings against them and significantly increased penalties. This case demonstrates that the Fair Work Ombudsman will take steps to ensure FWC orders are enforced and employers need to be aware of this in all circumstances.

]]>https://employmentinnovations.com/legal-blog-do-not-ignore-fair-work-commision-orders/feed/0HR Blog: The Leadership Leap – Foster Talent and Develop Emerging Leadershttps://employmentinnovations.com/hr-blog-foster-talent-develop-emerging-leaders/
https://employmentinnovations.com/hr-blog-foster-talent-develop-emerging-leaders/#commentsWed, 08 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0000http://employmentinnovations.com/?p=17167Are the next generation of leaders equipped with the right skills and qualities to confidently handle the unique challenges of the future workplace? A new report (“Leadership Qualities: How Emerging Leaders Differ From The Crowd”) by Hudson has revealed some insights at odds with popular...

]]>Are the next generation of leaders equipped with the right skills and qualities to confidently handle the unique challenges of the future workplace?

A new report (“Leadership Qualities: How Emerging Leaders Differ From The Crowd”) by Hudson has revealed some insights at odds with popular belief in this area. The report followed a survey of over 100 emerging leaders in Australian businesses and compared them to established leaders – those of whom they are intended to succeed in the next 5 years. Surprisingly, what this highlighted was a tendency for emerging leaders to be averse to change and have a preference instead to rely on proven ways of doing things.

It is likely that what worked for many of us when we first started our careers may not necessarily work now. This is evident in the identified skills gap of emerging leaders. Many of us started our careers in a technical space and after some time we became proficient enough to be regarded as an expert. An expert is then promoted to a management role, mainly because of their ability to work independently and achieve results, and is automatically assumed to have the right leadership qualities to succeed.

This strong task focus appears to come at the cost of building effective relationships, even though communication was otherwise identified as a strength in emerging leaders. So while a strategic focus is adopted, motivating and influencing other people to embrace that vision sometimes receives insufficient attention.

The report recommends that HR practitioners focus on four key areas in the development of emerging leaders – improving their confidence in decision-making, embracing change, encouraging more participative leadership styles and coaching in the art of persuasion and motivation.

It is evidently clear that businesses of all sizes need clear talent management strategies in place to ensure that emerging leaders can be identified early for development. There is also generally no “one-size-fits-all” approach to this task as what makes a successful leader in one organisation does not necessarily translate across to another.

What Employment Innovations (EI) have done internally and across our ongoing work with clients is clearly define the unique qualities of a successful “A Player” in that business – with a particular focus on the qualities that are found in its current and future leaders. Such individuals are typically motivated to perform, actively pursue success and inspire a high performance culture throughout the business. They generally share the same positive personal characteristics, display and promote behaviours consistent with company values. A future leader will demonstrate additional network qualities – at all levels of the business – to influence others in achieving business outcomes.

Once talent is defined, we make an effort to measure each employee’s individual performance and impact across the business against these qualities. We have a similar tool used during recruitment so that we are constantly assessing talent both within and outside of the business – and have developed top-graded interview questions matched to these qualities.

This is a fairly simple tool to measure individual performance and impact – but also a better way for the business to demonstrate an improvement in its overall “Talent IQ” over a period of time – by shipping out “C Players”, developing “B Players”, and retaining “A Players”.

Exceptional individuals are identified through this exercise to participate in an emerging leaders program which has its own purpose and set objectives – consisting of “jungle gym experiences” – matching emerging leaders with strategic and diverse projects – and masterclasses – focused learning and mentoring opportunities targeting specific skills gaps.

EI’s tips for fostering talent and developing emerging leaders:-

Having a clear criteria to identify emerging leaders;

Creating a clear pathway for emerging leaders;

Matching emerging leaders with unique assignments outside of their current role;

Designing tailored training and development programs for your emerging leaders; and

Shane Duffy is People & Culture Manager of Employment Innovations (EI), recognised as an Aon Hewitt Best Employer 2013. EI’s People & Culture Strategy is two-fold – improving overall employee experience and “practicing what we preach” in demonstrating the positive impact of HR innovation on business performance.